On 30 October 2011 00:34, Ovid <publiustemp-perl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Should have been sent to the list, not just Fergal. > > Cheers, > Ovid > -- > Live and work overseas - http://overseas-exile.blogspot.com/ > Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ > Tech blog - http://blogs.perl.org/users/ovid/ > Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl/ > > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- >> From: Ovid <curtis_ovid_...@yahoo.com> >> To: Fergal Daly <fer...@esatclear.ie> >> Cc: >> Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011, 17:33 >> Subject: Re: Do we need subtests in TAP? >> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Fergal Daly <fer...@esatclear.ie> >> >> >>> It seems like it's impossible then to declare a global plan in advance >>> if you use subtests unless you go counting all the sub tests which is >>> no fun, >> >> >> Oops. It think it may not have been explained well. There is no distinction >> at >> the top level between a subtest and an individual test: >> >> is $foo, $bar, $description; >> subtest 'some test', sub { ... }; >> >> That's two tests. It doesn't matter how many "tests" the >> subtest runs (even if it contains further subtests): it's one test. >> >> That makes it *easier* to maintain plans with subtests. When Abigail was >> testing >> regexes, Abigail had a problem knowing in advance how many tests a given >> feature >> would require for various versions of Perl. Just dropping each feature into a >> subtest made it trivial. Each subtest would exercise a varying number of >> tests >> per feature (in other words, subtests bridge the gap between xUnit testing >> and >> TAP).
The proposal to drop indentation and make all tests (sub or not) use the same numbering scheme would seem to prevent exactly that, F >> >> Cheers, >> Ovid >> -- >> Live and work overseas - http://overseas-exile.blogspot.com/ >> Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ >> Tech blog - http://blogs.perl.org/users/ovid/ >> Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl/ >> >
